On 22/04/10 at 00:11 +0200, Tobi wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> > 3) Instead of providing several libfoo-ruby1.{8,9.1} packages, we
> > provide only one when it is possible (pure ruby packages), named
> > libfoo-ruby.
> > When this is not possible (case of packages that contain native extensions),
> > we continue to provide several binary packages libfoo-ruby1{8,9.1}.
>
> What about 1.8-only packages? I only know of libparstree wich will
> probably never be available for 1.9 [1]. Does it make sense to keep such
> 1.8-only packages around?
Yes, probably until 1.9 is really the new default version.
> libparstree is required by libheckle which is used by rspec. My vague
> plans for squeeze+1 were to drop libparstree/libheckle alltogether, if I
> don't find a way to make them work with 1.9.1.
Apparently, rspec doesn't require parsetree itself, but some packages
require it in their spec files. The Ruby release plans are too unclear
to bet on anything regarding 1.9.X vs 1.8 as the default Ruby version
for squeeze+1.
If 1.9.X becomes the real new stable version, we can of course drop all
1.8 packages.
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ruby-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100422062042.gb9...@xanadu.blop.info
